Abortion and religion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Vatican issued a statement that being pro life requires combatting poverty and gun violence.

I’m a strong second amendment supporter but I’m firmly against gun violence and all other forms of violence. Use the existing criminal laws against violence; enforce them to the maximum extent; get violent criminals off of our streets so that others are free to engage in peaceful education and commerce, which will reduce poverty for all. Sounds good to me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it isn't. If Evangelicals don't want abortions, then they don't have to have them, but they cannot restrict other people's options and choices.

See the difference?

You could say the same thing statutory child rape — “If you don’t like it, just don’t do it.” But that’s not the way it works in a democracy. We all get a say as to what is acceptable and unacceptable—regardless of our religious beliefs.

We are supposed to try to convince one another using logic and persuasion — not use the courts to force our minority religious dogmas on everyone else.

A fetus is not a human being, not until it is fully formed and can function separately from the woman. Separately does not mean independently by the way. We don’t treat a 6 week old fetus as a citizen in this country, nor does any country in the world.

But even if it were, we don’t force people in this country to sustain another human being, even if it is to save their life. Mothers of newborns are not forced to keep and raise them, you are not forced to donate your bone marrow to a kid that will die without it. So forcing pregnant women to sustain a pregnancy against their will, is not only inhuman but makes them second class citizens in this country.

If you feel that citizens of this country should be forced to undergo medical and biological processes so they can sustain the life of someone else, then have it apply to everyone, and put it up for a vote.

Actually we do — if an infant or child is in the hands of an adult, the adult is responsible for maintaining them and keeping them alive and safe. Under certain circumstances, the adult can hand over the child to others and thereby free him/herself from the obligation, but they can’t unilaterally decide to abandon the child wherever/whenever they want to; they must wait until the child can be cared for by others.

So yes, the law does impose obligations on adults to provide care and support to others—especially the most vulnerable among us such as babies and children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it isn't. If Evangelicals don't want abortions, then they don't have to have them, but they cannot restrict other people's options and choices.

See the difference?

You could say the same thing statutory child rape — “If you don’t like it, just don’t do it.” But that’s not the way it works in a democracy. We all get a say as to what is acceptable and unacceptable—regardless of our religious beliefs.

We are supposed to try to convince one another using logic and persuasion — not use the courts to force our minority religious dogmas on everyone else.

A fetus is not a human being, not until it is fully formed and can function separately from the woman. Separately does not mean independently by the way. We don’t treat a 6 week old fetus as a citizen in this country, nor does any country in the world.

But even if it were, we don’t force people in this country to sustain another human being, even if it is to save their life. Mothers of newborns are not forced to keep and raise them, you are not forced to donate your bone marrow to a kid that will die without it. So forcing pregnant women to sustain a pregnancy against their will, is not only inhuman but makes them second class citizens in this country.

If you feel that citizens of this country should be forced to undergo medical and biological processes so they can sustain the life of someone else, then have it apply to everyone, and put it up for a vote.

Actually we do — if an infant or child is in the hands of an adult, the adult is responsible for maintaining them and keeping them alive and safe. Under certain circumstances, the adult can hand over the child to others and thereby free him/herself from the obligation, but they can’t unilaterally decide to abandon the child wherever/whenever they want to; they must wait until the child can be cared for by others.

So yes, the law does impose obligations on adults to provide care and support to others—especially the most vulnerable among us such as babies and children.

A fetus literally depends on your own blood to survive. Get bent with your bad faith nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Vatican issued a statement that being pro life requires combatting poverty and gun violence.

The Catholic Church holds that abortion in all instances is a grave sin. Call us when their forced birth doctrine and misogyny changes.

[Anonymous]

Random — but related question: Do the forced birthers ever eat eggs? Do they say that they had scrambled eggs for breakfast and cake for dessert? Or do they say that they had mangled chickens for breakfast and a dessert made with the mutilated bodies of poultry?

If it’s the former, how can they view human development with less specificity and nuance than their breakfasts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Vatican issued a statement that being pro life requires combatting poverty and gun violence.

The Catholic Church holds that abortion in all instances is a grave sin. Call us when their forced birth doctrine and misogyny changes.

Millions of catholics think the vatican is wrong on this issue and ignore their opinion on most reproductive issues. All for emulating a life of service like christ but the Vatican should stick to that and stay out of reproductive issues. They are clueless about these matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Random — but related question: Do the forced birthers ever eat eggs? Do they say that they had scrambled eggs for breakfast and cake for dessert? Or do they say that they had mangled chickens for breakfast and a dessert made with the mutilated bodies of poultry?

If it’s the former, how can they view human development with less specificity and nuance than their breakfasts?

First, the eggs you eat are unfertilized.

Second, even if they were, just because you call it an egg doesn't mean it's not a chicken. An egg is a stage in the life of the chicken. Just because you call your toddler a toddler doesn't mean he's not human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Random — but related question: Do the forced birthers ever eat eggs? Do they say that they had scrambled eggs for breakfast and cake for dessert? Or do they say that they had mangled chickens for breakfast and a dessert made with the mutilated bodies of poultry?

If it’s the former, how can they view human development with less specificity and nuance than their breakfasts?

First, the eggs you eat are unfertilized.

Second, even if they were, just because you call it an egg doesn't mean it's not a chicken. An egg is a stage in the life of the chicken. Just because you call your toddler a toddler doesn't mean he's not human.

Thanks for your response. While I get that people value different things for different reasons, I’m struggling to understand the thought process behind it — assuming it goes beyond faith. So I can understand your first point — with a fertilized egg being something qualitatively different from an unfertilized egg — even if I view the second point quite differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Vatican issued a statement that being pro life requires combatting poverty and gun violence.

The Catholic Church holds that abortion in all instances is a grave sin. Call us when their forced birth doctrine and misogyny changes.

Millions of catholics think the vatican is wrong on this issue and ignore their opinion on most reproductive issues. All for emulating a life of service like christ but the Vatican should stick to that and stay out of reproductive issues. They are clueless about these matters.

+1. The Catholic Church has very deep pockets and is leading and funding anti-women, reactionary movements all over the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Vatican issued a statement that being pro life requires combatting poverty and gun violence.

I’m a strong second amendment supporter but I’m firmly against gun violence and all other forms of violence. Use the existing criminal laws against violence; enforce them to the maximum extent; get violent criminals off of our streets so that others are free to engage in peaceful education and commerce, which will reduce poverty for all. Sounds good to me!

Demands nothing of himself (oh, sorry. You’ll be sure to say you’re a woman), ignores the main point. You better be voting straight Democratic ticket in November since this thread is about abortion and religion and the GOP is perpetrating incredible violence against women by enslaving them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Vatican issued a statement that being pro life requires combatting poverty and gun violence.

The Catholic Church holds that abortion in all instances is a grave sin. Call us when their forced birth doctrine and misogyny changes.

They used to burn women as witches

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Random — but related question: Do the forced birthers ever eat eggs? Do they say that they had scrambled eggs for breakfast and cake for dessert? Or do they say that they had mangled chickens for breakfast and a dessert made with the mutilated bodies of poultry?

If it’s the former, how can they view human development with less specificity and nuance than their breakfasts?

First, the eggs you eat are unfertilized.

Second, even if they were, just because you call it an egg doesn't mean it's not a chicken. An egg is a stage in the life of the chicken. Just because you call your toddler a toddler doesn't mean he's not human.

Thanks for your response. While I get that people value different things for different reasons, I’m struggling to understand the thought process behind it — assuming it goes beyond faith. So I can understand your first point — with a fertilized egg being something qualitatively different from an unfertilized egg — even if I view the second point quite differently.

Thanks for being civil! So rare. Which statement do you disagree with, that an egg is a stage in the life of a chicken or that a toddler is a stage in human life? I ask because I genuinely think it is a matter of science and logic that an embryo is a stage of human life, much like newborn phase or old age. What is the flaw in my reasoning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it isn't. If Evangelicals don't want abortions, then they don't have to have them, but they cannot restrict other people's options and choices.

See the difference?

You could say the same thing statutory child rape — “If you don’t like it, just don’t do it.” But that’s not the way it works in a democracy. We all get a say as to what is acceptable and unacceptable—regardless of our religious beliefs.

We are supposed to try to convince one another using logic and persuasion — not use the courts to force our minority religious dogmas on everyone else.

A fetus is not a human being, not until it is fully formed and can function separately from the woman. Separately does not mean independently by the way. We don’t treat a 6 week old fetus as a citizen in this country, nor does any country in the world.

But even if it were, we don’t force people in this country to sustain another human being, even if it is to save their life. Mothers of newborns are not forced to keep and raise them, you are not forced to donate your bone marrow to a kid that will die without it. So forcing pregnant women to sustain a pregnancy against their will, is not only inhuman but makes them second class citizens in this country.

If you feel that citizens of this country should be forced to undergo medical and biological processes so they can sustain the life of someone else, then have it apply to everyone, and put it up for a vote.

Actually we do — if an infant or child is in the hands of an adult, the adult is responsible for maintaining them and keeping them alive and safe. Under certain circumstances, the adult can hand over the child to others and thereby free him/herself from the obligation, but they can’t unilaterally decide to abandon the child wherever/whenever they want to; they must wait until the child can be cared for by others.

So yes, the law does impose obligations on adults to provide care and support to others—especially the most vulnerable among us such as babies and children.

A fetus literally depends on your own blood to survive. Get bent with your bad faith nonsense.

Or depends on technology. Are you arguing that a premie isn’t a person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because Evangelical and Catholic Christians tend to be the most strict when it comes to female reproductive health.

For example, a fetus does not have a soul until 120 days. And while some people consider abortion always a "sin," many Muslims consider abortion pre-120 days considerably more acceptable since it doesn't yet have a soul.

This.

Catholic extremists and Christian extremists tend to have the most restrictive beliefs on abortion. Yes, there are some conservative Muslims who will always consider abortion a sin. But it is pretty universally believed that a soul is not "breathed" into a fetus until 120 days, and the time before that has MUCH more wiggle room regarding termination. Islam also supports abortion at any point, if the pregnancy endangers the mother's health and life.

This SCOTUS decision is outrageous lawfully and ethically, to anyone I know who was raised (or is still practicing) Muslim. I am not practicing, but I was brought up in a faithful family. There were never any strong ideas presented regarding abortion. It was always assumed to be 1000% acceptable for rape, incest, and danger to the mother, and with discretion at other times. Essentially, it was between at woman and God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Evangelical and Catholic Christians tend to be the most strict when it comes to female reproductive health.

For example, a fetus does not have a soul until 120 days. And while some people consider abortion always a "sin," many Muslims consider abortion pre-120 days considerably more acceptable since it doesn't yet have a soul.

This.

Catholic extremists and Christian extremists tend to have the most restrictive beliefs on abortion. Yes, there are some conservative Muslims who will always consider abortion a sin. But it is pretty universally believed that a soul is not "breathed" into a fetus until 120 days, and the time before that has MUCH more wiggle room regarding termination. Islam also supports abortion at any point, if the pregnancy endangers the mother's health and life.

This SCOTUS decision is outrageous lawfully and ethically, to anyone I know who was raised (or is still practicing) Muslim. I am not practicing, but I was brought up in a faithful family. There were never any strong ideas presented regarding abortion. It was always assumed to be 1000% acceptable for rape, incest, and danger to the mother, and with discretion at other times. Essentially, it was between at woman and God.

Same.